The Somali community in the UK: What we know and how we ... - ICAR

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Decisions on Somali asylum applications and rates of refusal As the graph above shows, 2003 was the first year in which fewer than 50% of Somali asylum seekers were granted leave to remain in the UK. Rates of refusal of Somali asylum applications have increased considerably since 1999. Although only 120 Somali asylum claims were refused in 1999, this represented 39% of all decisions, as only 305 decisions were made during that year. This trend has continued in subsequent years with 21% of claims being refused in 2000, 42% in 2001, 42% in 2002, and 63% in 2003. This represents a sharp reduction in the percentage of applicants being granted ELR and a fluctuating but declining percentage of applicants granted refugee status from 1997 onwards. Exceptional leave to remain (ELR), humanitarian protection (HP), and discretionary leave (DL) There has been a noticeable change in the proportion of asylum applicants granted ELR during the period surveyed (1998-2003). As the graph above shows, between 1991 and 1996, the majority of Somali asylum applicants (88%) were granted ELR. This is in line with a wider trend in asylum decisions: between 1985 and 1993, 55% of all decisions on asylum claims were to grant ELR, though this dropped significantly in subsequent years, averaging only 15% between 1994 and 2002. 43 The impermanence of their status and concern about whether their leave would be extended caused significant anxiety to many Somalis granted ELR. 44 Since their introduction in April 2003, combined grants of humanitarian protection and discretionary leave have been significantly lower than grants of ELR – averaging only 7% of all decisions. This is in line with the Home Secretary’s decision to “restrict grants of leave to unsuccessful asylum seekers who are recognised to be in need of international protection or to have other compelling reasons for not being removed”. 45 by many Somalis. Interpretation of terms such as ‘persecution’ in the Refugee Convention has been the subject of much debate among refugee lawyers, as well as being subject to varying interpretation in national jurisdictions. Although the Refugee Convention was drafted to protect individuals who feared harm from the state or its agents, such as police or security officials, some refugees may fear ‘non-state’ actors or agents, such as ‘warlords’ (the ringleaders of militia groups), as in the case of many Somalis. 46 In October 1995, the UK Home Office asylum division produced a background brief on Somalia stating that many Somalis were not Convention refugees as they were not members of a group suffering persecution from a state authority. This may have been one of the reasons for the high percentage of grants of ELR rather than refugee status, particularly in the early 1990s. 47 For example, in the case of Adan (a Somali asylum seeker) 48 in 1998, the House of Lords held that in order to be successful in an asylum claim, an applicant would have to show that s/he faced a risk “over and above” those inherent in the general situation of civil war. Refusal of Somali asylum applications However, not all asylum claims are refused solely because they are not deemed to meet the terms of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, or the criteria for a grant of ELR, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave. In 2003, 3,240 Somali asylum seekers had their claims refused after full consideration. This represented 85% of all Somali refusals, and 54% of total decisions taken in that year. Asylum applications may also be refused without full (or substantive) consideration of the claim itself, on grounds of either ‘non-compliance’, or if the applicant is to be returned to a third country (i.e. neither the UK nor the applicant’s country of origin) which is deemed to be safe, in order for the asylum claim to be determined there. Guidance for Home Office caseworkers on refusing asylum claims without substantive consideration is included in the Asylum Policy Instructions. 49 One of the reasons for granting ELR rather than asylum was due to the nature of persecution faced 28 The Somali community in the UK
Non-compliance Asylum applications may be refused on the grounds of non-compliance if the applicant is considered to have failed “without reasonable explanation, to make a prompt and full disclosure of material factors, either orally or in writing, or otherwise to assist the Secretary of State in establishing the facts of the case”. 50 This includes failure to attend an interview relating to the claim, failure to report to be fingerprinted, failure to complete an asylum questionnaire (statement of evidence form - SEF), or failure to comply with a requirement to report to an Immigration Officer for examination. This usually means that although there is a right to appeal against the refusal, the substance of the claim is not considered in depth at the initial decision stage and the first occasion on which it will be examined in detail would be on appeal before an adjudicator. From 2000, a large number of asylum claims were refused on the basis that asylum applicants had not submitted their asylum questionnaire (SEF) within the required ten-working-day time period, although it later came to light that the majority of these had been wrongly denoted late, due to a processing error at the Home Office. 51 Thus in 2000, 24,290 of all asylum applications were refused on noncompliance grounds, a 22-fold increase on the 1,085 refusals in 1999. Non-compliance refusals constituted 15% of all decisions made in both 2002 and 2003, 18% in 2001, and 25% in 2000, compared to 5% in 1999. In 2003, 460 Somali asylum applications were refused on the grounds of non-compliance. This constituted 12% of the total number of refusals and 8% of the total number of decisions made during that year. ‘Third country’ cases Asylum applications may also be refused on the grounds that the applicant should be returned to a ‘third country’ which they passed through en route to the UK in order that their asylum claim can be considered there. This usually applies if the asylum seeker arrived in the UK not directly from the country where they feared persecution, but from another country in which they had the opportunity to claim asylum, and if there is “clear evidence” that the asylum seeker would be admitted to that state. Since 1993, if the asylum seeker is to be returned to another EU member state under the terms of the Dublin Convention 52 or to a state designated by Parliament (currently Canada, Norway, Switzerland, and the USA), the asylum seeker may only appeal against the removal decision after s/he has left the UK, although it is possible to seek judicial review of the decision to transfer them. In the case of removal to all other countries, there is an in-country right of appeal against the third country removal. In the case of Adan and Aitsegur 53 in 2000, the House of Lords held that Germany and France were wrong in not recognising persecution by ‘non-state’ agents and that, as a consequence, asylum seekers should not be removed from the UK to either of those countries on ‘third country’ grounds. 54 This constituted an important decision for the safety of Somalis in the UK. In 2003 only 80 Somalis (1% of all decisions) were refused asylum on safe third country grounds. Appeals Somali asylum applicants have had higher success rates on appeal than the average for all asylum claims. In 2003, 38% of all Somali appeals were allowed, as compared with 26% from Africans as a 43. Calculations based on figures cited in figure 6.1 of Refugee Council, (2002) Asylum by numbers 1985-2000, London: Refugee Council, Asylum statistics United Kingdom 2002, published 28 August 2003, and Asylum statistics 4th quarter 2003, published 24 February 2004. 44. See also Seddon, 2002: 218. 45. Asylum Policy Unit Notice 01/2003, ‘Humanitarian protection and discretionary leave’, 1 April 2003. 46. Seddon, op.cit.: 161. 47. Griffiths, op. cit.: 82. 48. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Adan, [1998] 2 WLR 702. 49. Available online from: http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/default. asp?pageid=2626. 50. Paragraph 340 of the Immigration Rules (HC395 as amended): http:// www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/default.asp?PageId=3197. 51. Seddon, op. cit.: 206. 52. This provision also applies to Norway and Iceland, by special agreement between the EU member states and Norway and Iceland, ‘Refusals without substantive consideration: Third country cases’, Asylum policy instructions: http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/default.asp?PageId=2654 53. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Adan and Aitsegur, [2001] INLR 44, HL. 54. Seddon, op. cit.: 207-08. The Somali community in the UK 29
Page 1 and 2: The Somali community in the UK What
Page 3 and 4: Table of contents Foreword 4 Introd
Page 5 and 6: participate in their children’s s
Page 7 and 8: esponse to this charge is that the
Page 9 and 10: topics selected are those which Som
Page 11 and 12: Table A: Classification of sources
Page 13 and 14: since the late 1980s have come main
Page 15 and 16: Somali diaspora (2000) includes enc
Page 17 and 18: of accurate numerical data. This is
Page 19 and 20: A she-camel is a mother To him who
Page 21 and 22: - religious leaders, clan elders, i
Page 23 and 24: These men tended to form a separate
Page 25 and 26: Entry into the UK 8000 Figure A: As
Page 27: Figure B: Number of initial decisio
Page 31 and 32: (usually Addis Ababa or Nairobi). H
Page 33 and 34: Table F: Estimates of Somali popula
Page 35 and 36: Table H: Estimates of Somali popula
Page 37 and 38: The unreliability of statistics is
Page 39 and 40: London, Liverpool, and Manchester.
Page 41 and 42: industries. But here, too, even giv
Page 43 and 44: own community, potential workers si
Page 45 and 46: Youngster’s [sic] are behind in e
Page 47 and 48: Attitudes to girls’ education by
Page 49 and 50: It is the family that she identifie
Page 51 and 52: British peers. Writing of the “cu
Page 53 and 54: Health Despite the importance of th
Page 55 and 56: colleagues, in a study of Somali me
Page 57 and 58: I have been here since 1983 and the
Page 59 and 60: social parameters” is detrimental
Page 61 and 62: such as those listed in the documen
Page 63 and 64: autonomous control, divorce is not
Page 65 and 66: together [of] their birth and their
Page 67 and 68: purposes. The same might be said of
Page 69 and 70: Although operating in a very differ
Page 71 and 72: Conclusion Despite the seeming diff
Page 73 and 74: Buxton, C. (n.d.), Somali children
Page 75 and 76: women, Diverse Heritage Trust Ltd #
Page 77 and 78: Smyth, K. and Mohamed, A. (1997), R
Page 79:
The Somali community in the UK 79
show all

The Somali community in the UK: What we know and how we ... - ICAR

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?